Pointless Primary Provides Predictable Poutcome

So, yesterday's primary election for councilor-at-large is over. Ron Dionne lost, despite having a fancy book on city council procedures or something.

He probably shouldn't have spent his time on FATV whining about the former mayor and complaining that the primary cost thirty grand to get rid of one person. Instead, he should just have dropped out and saved the city thirty grand. Dumbfuck.

This outcome is surprising to nobody, especially if you read the psychic predictions of Mr. Lincoln.

Per the Sentinel, the breakdown went like this:

1. Stephan Hay
2. Thomas Conry
3. Marcus DiNatale
4. Dean Tran
5. Rosemary Reynolds
6. Michael DiPietro
7. Robin Streb
8. Dan Mylott
9. Stephen Seney
10. Robert Boutwell
11. Ron Dionne (eliminated)

Personally, I like exactly two people on this list (Streb and DiPietro, though I have a certain fond sympathy for Boutwell). It's depressing to see lunatic Rosemary Reynolds above them, but it's pretty nice to see Mylott and the deeply-irritating Seney down near the bottom.

Thus ends the obligatory boring-as-fuck post-pointless-primary post.

Guy with funny nickname running for mayor!

I'm a day late on this (due to laziness), but there's big news in Fitchburg politics!

According to the Sentinel, here's the deal:

Local sandwich shop owner Michael "Fuzzy" Voisine has pulled papers to run for mayor against incumbent Lisa Wong.

Voisine, 43, a Maverick Street resident, said he's running on a campaign of "change" and that he's fed up with the "good old boys" network that permeates city politics.

"I'm going to give it a shot," Voisine said.

I like that winning attitude, Fuzzy!

So, besides giving Mayor Wong something to do during the run-up to the election, what's Fuzzy all about? Besides sandwiches, I mean.

He's known widely around the city as "Fuzzy," a nickname he said he's had since junior high school.

I'm sure there's an interesting and/or humiliating story behind that nickname. Sadly, we don't get the backstory. I'm going to assume Fuzzy was either remarkably hirsute in junior high, had an unfortunate haircut, or maybe it was something to do with pubic hair (kids that age are crazy about pubic hair!).

What else do we know about Fuzzy?

He's worked on Main Street in Fitchburg for most of his life, first at Domino's Pizza, then managing Espresso Pizza for 14 years.

He left Espresso almost five years ago to start his own sub shop, Premier Subs, at 500 Main St.

"No one thought I would last a year, and I've been here for four and a half," he said.

Well, now I'm a little embarrassed. I drive by that place fairly often and had no idea it was still operational. My mistake! (Hey commenters, is the food any good?)

Anyway, it's nice to know that in addition to sandwiches, Fuzzy also enjoys pizza. He's a man of the people! Except maybe the people who think that sugary-sweet sauce they use at Espresso Pizza is incredibly disgusting, like me.

Maybe it's time to get into the part that's actually relevant to politics, though. Knowing his culinary habits is fine and all, but doesn't really say much about his qualifications.

Voisine said has been considering a run for public office for a few weeks.

He got frustrated during the Civic Days celebration when, he said, some city officials would not allow him to have a band or a vendor's tent during the city's block party celebration on July 3.

"I've had some tough runnings with certain people in the mayor's office and I don't like to be talked down to," Voisine said.

Crap.

Running for mayor after minimal consideration, based on some petty frustration, is not really the best way to get into things. Remember what happened with Rachel, who ran essentially the same way and then had to drop out due to shame health problems?

Also, dude, your name is "Fuzzy." If you don't like to be talked down to, you might want to choose a different nickname. I suggest "Admiral Ignatius." That would get you much more respect.

Perhaps it's part of a larger problem?

Voisine said that points to a larger issue of city officials not being receptive to local residents and business owners.

"It seems like they don't care about existing businesses," he said. "Whoever is in office needs to listen to everyone."

Well, those are some... pretty vague charges, actually. I mean, I agree that officeholders need to listen to everyone (within reason, anyway), but do you really think your one little difficulty means that the city government is ignoring huge constituencies? I'd like some more examples, please.

So, what are Fuzzy's plans for improving things?

He said after two decades of working on Main Street in Fitchburg, he would like to see more change.

"Downtown is dying with all the empty storefronts," he said.

One idea, he said, is to make parking more accessible and he likes Wong's idea of angled parking on Main Street.

He also said he would like to continue and expand Wong's First Thursday initiative, which encouraged residents to visit downtown shops on the first Thursday of each month.

Okay, those are really the current Mayor's plans for improving things. But they are good ideas, and there's nothing wrong with supporting them. They're just not really new.

Indeed, Fuzzy thinks Mayor Wong is doing a pretty good job:

Voisine does not have many criticisms of Wong.

He said "given the hand she's been dealt," she is, "doing as good of a job she can."

Oh no, Fuzzy! You're dangerously close to losing the crazy "I hate Mayor Wong no matter what she does" voters!

Actually, that's fine. There aren't very many of those, they're just disproportionately loud.

I have, however, detected another problem:

Voisine said he's not sure he can do better than Wong in terms of managing the city finances, but he would bring a different "mind frame."

Wha?

Okay, I know that Fuzzy hasn't run for office before, but I'm pretty sure that saying you won't actually do a better job with city finances (by far the single most important issue) than your opponent seems like a way to make sure nobody will bother to vote for you.

At this point I'm having a hard time figuring out just why anyone should vote for Fuzzy. He supports ideas Lisa Wong proposed, and he doesn't know if he could do a better job than her on city finances (which suggests he probably couldn't). Given that, why not just vote for Wong?

Give us something fresh, Fuzzy!

Voisine said he would be a down-to-earth, receptive mayor, and would rely on a group of trusted advisers.

He said during his campaign and if he gets elected, he hopes to surround himself with "the best people I can."

That's not fresh! Tom Donnelly said pretty much the same stuff in the last mayoral election, and now he spends every day shining shoes for nickels down at the bus station ^{[Citation needed]}.

But what's this?

Voisine said he hopes to run a clean and inexpensive campaign.

"Throwing dirt does no good," he said.

He said he may hold fundraisers and looks forward to researching city policies in the coming weeks in preparation for the election.

"Once I get going, if I surround myself with the right people, I think I can make it work," he said. "For my own peace of mind, I need to give it a shot."

Well, that's admirable. Ron Dionne did largely the same thing last election (sans fundraising), and Ron Dionne is awesome! He's not the mayor, obviously, but he's still very likable!

It's much too early to say with any certainty, but I suspect that's what we're going to get with Fuzzy too. A well-meaning guy who figures he might as well give running for mayor a shot. Because why not? I, for one, welcome him!

Unfortunately, so far he comes off as sane, reasonable, and unqualified to run the city. This all adds up to "sorta boring." As such, I have some unsolicited advice for Fuzzy.

Dear Fuzzy,

You seem like an okay enough guy, but from what I've seen so far you're probably not going to win this election. You probably already know this.

So, what to do? I have two options you may wish to explore.

The "Respectable" Option: While you're researching city policies, try to come up with some original policies of your own. They don't have to be great, but they should at least be new and interesting. Armed with these interesting new ideas, you can present them to the public and the current mayor as things to consider. Even if you lose the election, if your ideas are good enough they may get adopted by the winner.

Then you can sleep comfortably, knowing you ran a clean and respectable campaign and through the power of your ideas, you will have made an impact on the city, win or lose.

The "Batshit Insane" Option: Look at the past mayoral campaigns of Ted DeSalvatore and Rachel Rosenfeld, and try to be like them. Say lots of things that make no sense, and back them up with bluster and lies. Get personally offended by broad societal trends, and make bombastic, threatening gestures for no apparent reason. You can easily pull in the crazy asshole vote this way.

This option won't win you the election. It also won't make you look respectable, or even sane. However, it would be entertaining and make for some easy blog posts in which I'd be very mean to you.

Either way, good luck.
Pope Unicow

PS The second option will more easily allow you to start calling yourself "Admiral Ignatius," and is clearly the better choice!

FINI

More people running for things!

Yeah, I've been really lazy about the blogging lately. Mostly, this is due to there being no interesting news (there's news, it's just dull) to write about. Today's news isn't super-interesting either, but at least it's something.

The "something" in question should be obvious from the title of this post. People are running for office in Fitchburg, so let's see who they are.

This information comes from the Sentinel & Enterprise, in this article. So who's running?

There are now 10 candidates running for the city's five councilor at-large seats, according to City Hall records.

Councilors Stephan Hay, Marcus DiNatale and Dean Tran have already signed in to run for reelection.

No surprise on any of those, though it's interesting to note that Tran is running for reelection as a City Councilor and not making a mayoral bid. Ditto for DiNatale. Guess the local anti-Wong crowd is going to be disappointed about that (which is fine with me, fuck those jerks!).

We already knew about some of these, though it appears that Conry's supposed reelection bid from that old post has been abandoned. He and Annie DeMartino are not seeking reelection. Councilor Solomito is, though he apparently hasn't filed the paperwork yet to get his name at the top of the article.

That old post also has a few names that appear in today's article. McNutt, Reynolds, Bernard, and Hartman were all previously mentioned.

Also previously mentioned is former mayor Dan Mylott, who is still in the "has pulled papers" stage and is taking his sweet time getting to the "candidate who will lose" stage. Oh well.

So, who are the newcomers?

New candidates that have filed papers within the last six weeks include Robert Boutwell, 57, a Longedge Avenue resident and former member of the Airport Commission.

Boutwell, who's also running for at-large councilor, said he wants to dig into the city finances.

"I believe at this point that everything needs to be looked at and reviewed," he said. "Reforms are needed in policies and procedures, and if at all possible, we need to do more with less."

Standard stuff, really, but that's about all we can reasonably expect at this point. Make with the websites, people!

Who else?

Linda Nicholopoulos, 55, will be running for councilor at-large after she's served on the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board, the Cultural Council and the Friends of Senior Center.

"I would like to promote a positive image of Fitchburg," Nicholopoulos said. "I've lived here for 31 years and I see the good in Fitchburg."

Nicholopoulos said her priorities would be public safety, the seniors and the schools if she gets elected.

Okay, that's fine. Positive images are nice, and Nicholopoulos has clearly devoted some time to public service already. Good for her.

Next!

Sprauge Street resident and current Planning Board member Michael DiPietro has also pulled papers to run for councilor at-large.

Well, that's sort of content-free. He's run before though, and here's how Jason at the now-defunct Save Fitchburg characterized him in a liveblog:

Michael DiPietro: Live-long resident, seen the good and the bad. Dad was a school teacher, grandfather long-time caretaker at Crocker Field. Wants to give back to the community... Wants to erase negativity and move Fitchburg forward. Nice... Financial issues: Conservative spending, encourage biz and residential development. Mentions city image again... Says one of the reasons people move here is the school system. Uh, that image adjustment can't come all at once, Michael... Says Fitchburg can be better than ever, and the "pre-eminent community in the Montachusett" area. Not too shabby.

Which sounds okay, though it's still standard "I'm running for office and not going to say too much" boilerplate.

So far, so boring. But here's where it gets interesting! Lovable leprechaun, former mayoral candidate, and personal favorite Ron Dionne is running for City Council!

Also running for councilor at-large is former mayoral candidate Ron Dionne.

Dionne said he would bring an "outsider" perspective.

"If this is going to turn around, it's going to turn around from an outsider perspective," he said. "Someone not in politics needs to get in and say this is the way to go."

Well, Dionne is certainly "someone not in politics"!

Will he spend more than 30 bucks on his campaign this time? Who cares? All that matters is that he's in the race, and I'm glad to see him.

We also get a bit more information on some of the people running, like this from Ward 4 candidate Ryan McNutt:

Other new candidates that have filed for election include Ryan McNutt, 32, who is running against incumbent Kevin Starr for the Ward 4 seat.

McNutt said he regularly attends City Council meetings and has worked as an intern in the mayor's office and Board of Health.

"I see things in Ward 4 where I live that really, seriously need to be addressed," McNutt said. "And I don't see any action or plan."

McNutt said, for example, he would like to see a "long-term plan" to address foreclosure issues on Elm and Marshall streets.

See all that new information? McNutt is 32! (Also the internship & meeting-attending stuff is new, I suppose.)

The rest is the standard stuff, as usual. He does have a pretty decent website up already though, which will be reviewed at a later date, once I'm sure Starr's website has been made current.

Who else?

Juan Rosado, 30, a Madison Street resident, is running against Ward 2 Councilor Norman Boisvert. He said he's lived in the city for six years and he wants to see more action to improve Cleghorn.

"We need to have a better environment for the kids," he said.

Oh man, a guy with an Hispanic name looking to improve Cleghorn? The local wingnuts are going to hate him. I don't think they're too crazy about kids either.

Personally, I like him if only because Boisvert sucks so badly. We'll have to see what he's all about later, though. A single non-controversial sentence in a S&E article isn't much to go on.

Here's something else from the article that I wasn't aware of:

Councilors serve two year terms and are paid $9,000 a year.

Man, that sucks ass. I knew they weren't paid much, but had somehow gotten it in my head that it was eleven or twelve grand. Nine is just terrible.

So there you have it! People, running for office. I'm going to put together a post in the near future listing everyone who's running and providing links to their websites, so if anybody knows where websites for these new candidates are, please give me a hand in the comments.

In the meantime, these are the people for you to stalk.

More mayoral madness!

Sadly, it's time for another post about mayoral candidate Rachel Rosenfeld (aka "Really Rachel", aka "Patricia A. Collins", aka "Patty Anne Collins", aka "Angry Anteater").

Personally, I'm already sick of talking about her. But I will soldier on. For the people!

Or, more accurately, Jason at Save Fitchburg soldiers on and I'll just direct you to this post of his, which is quite good.

Or, more accurately, the second half of it is good. The first half is an interview with Rachel, and is a bit tedious. Read it if you're feeling masochistic, or if you're unfamiliar with Rachel's unique brand of condescending inanity.

The second (good) half is Jason's assessment of the situation, and is actually interesting. I'll quote a bit of it here and throw in my own take.

[L]et's try to probe the thoughts of Rachel here. Does she really want to be mayor, or does she want a larger soapbox to hammer Wong, her archenemy? While the S&E pointed to her blog today as her launching pad, I'm arrogant enough to guess old SF does much better business, and that this is really where she made her bones. While I love old SF, let's be honest here, it's a limited audience. What's really her goal? Is she in it to win it, or hammer at Wong for the next eight to 10 months?

Yeah, this occurred to me as well.

This doesn't strike me as a serious campaign to become mayor, but rather as an exercise in self-promotion. A rather bizarre one at that.

Jason's quite right that it's not Rachel's blog that is the launching pad for her campaign. She hasn't even mentioned the campaign there at the time of writing. Even though both the S&E and the Telegram have made a big deal of her being a "blogger," she's mostly a commenter.

Which means that the launching pad for her "campaign" is actually the comments section of Save Fitchburg. I'm not sure if that's really sad or really funny. Both?

I'm sure people who actually read all the comments at SF (which is what, maybe a couple dozen people? I rarely venture into SF-comment-land.) have an opinion of Rachel, but most of the city doesn't know her and couldn't care less about some "blogger" with no money, no political experience, and no platform except "Lisa sucks."

In other words, there are very few people who give a shit about local political blogs. There are even fewer who give a shit about the comments sections. Rachel would be better off basing her campaign around comments on popular YouTube videos.

Anyway, moving on.

Jason writes:

Similarly, is she a stalking horse for someone? She clearly makes the rounds, talking to councilors and other city movers-and-shakers. Is she going to throw bombs and clear the path for another candidate? If I didn't know any better, I'd bet on Tran considering his remarks in the paper today. But that's too cynical, I think. But weirder things have happened in politics.

Well, I am that cynical. Here's what Tran said in the S&E story yesterday:

Tran, however, called Rosenfeld "more than qualified to sit in the corner office."

"I've never met anyone with more knowledge of politics and government than she has," Tran said Wednesday.

Once upon a time I thought Dean Tran was actually fairly intelligent. That time is over.

Dean, if Rachel Rosenfeld is the most knowledgeable person you know when it comes to politics, you really need to meet some new people. Maybe you should see if you can audit a couple of Civics classes at the high school? Or better yet, I'm sure FSC has some very smart poli-sci students.

One more quote from Jason:

Rachel at some point is going to have answer to a lot of things she has said on her blog and in other spaces in the last two or three years. Some of it would cause people to take pause. I'd love to say I'm going to do it, but the thought of rolling through thousands of comments makes me want to cry. It's a long campaign, I guess I have time.

Don't cry, Jason! Use Google!

For instance, here are 176 results showing comments she made on SF. Put a space in her name and you get 84 more.

Hell, I've got 74 results myself, and she swore off reading my "idiotic rants" quite awhile ago!

Sure, those are comment pages with multiple comments on each page, but you can always add more search terms to narrow things down. Considering Rachel's logorrhea, it shouldn't be too difficult to find some examples of crazy. Just add "trash" as a search term and you're halfway there.

Enough of that. Now, here's a prediction for you.

At some point before the primary (assuming there is one) Rachel will drop out. It might be because Tran enters the race, and of course Rachel isn't going to run against her special buddy. Or it could be because she's gotten enough ego-stroking out of her little crusade and doesn't want to suffer the humiliating defeat she's bound for. Or it could be because everyone's treating her campaign as a total joke and she discovers she needs to drop out due to "health problems."

Whatever the case, I don't think I'll be doing much more writing about her unless she actually becomes a more credible candidate than Ron Dionne was in 2007.

And she has a long way to go before she even reaches his level.



PS Oh, I also added a couple of new links over on the right, to Fitchburg Tension and the Rabbit Hole Blog. Check them out, won't you?

Ron Dionne is back in the newspaper!

Ohmygod, ohmygod, ohmygod! I'm super-excited!

Everyone's favorite lovable leprechaun and sometimes mayoral candidate Ron Dionne has a letter to the editor in the most recent edition of the Fitchburg Pride!

It's a nice letter too, in which he tells Mayor Wong that she's doing great and calls some city councilors dorks (sort of). I don't really care about the content, though. I'm just happy to see him in the newspaper again.

Does this mean that 1970s Lincoln will get his wish? Maybe!

As a side note, while looking for a humorous illustration for this post, I did a google image search on "ron dionne" and discovered that I am responsible for making a picture of Mayor McCheese show up for his name.

Sorry, Ron!

Huh?

So, it's still post-primary fun time and the papers are full of quotes from candidates and ex-candidates. Confusing, baffling quotes.

Honestly, I don't know if I've just finally fried one too many brain cells or what, but there's a whole bunch of stuff in the papers that I just can't wrap my head around. I assume the statements mean something, mostly because they're in the paper. Why would the paper print stuff that doesn't mean anything?

Anyway, let me give you some examples...

I first noticed this trend yesterday, in the Telegram article about the primary. They had some quotes from Dionne that just seemed baffling:

Mr. Dionne said he is considering not running for a political office again after what he calls a “disastrous” result.

“I’m not even going to make an attempt anymore,” he said.

What the hell? Did he even really make an attempt this year? Did he actually expect to get more than 36 votes? I mean, it's not like he raised any money or did any real campaigning or anything. Did he just expect people to vote for him because of his awesome goatee?

Then he got all brimstone and hellfire!

“Everything is following the path happening over the past years,” he said. “Destruction is what they are looking for, and it’s going to happen, too. I can see it happening. It’s a path to destruction.”

Oh my goodness!

I thought Dionne just ran for fun! He was the nice guy who didn't really have a chance but was there to represent the underdog. Now he's prophesied "a path to destruction!" What happened? Where'd the lovable little leprechaun from the debates go?

The next thing that stuck out to me was in this article in the Telegram. Tom Donnelly talks a little about how he's going to focus more on change now. All well and good, totally understandable stuff. But then comes this bit:

“I question changing people without municipal experience versus someone with municipal experience, meaning me,” he said. “I can make change.”

Okay, I understand the last bit: "I can make change." Sure, he sounds sort of like a cashier, but I know what he meant.

It's the first part that's so baffling. I gather he's saying that you can't make change without municipal experience. Or that you should only change to someone with municipal experience. Or something. Is changing to someone with municipal experience even changing? Is what he said even a sentence?

Actually, is he questioning the act of changing people (with changing as a verb), or is he questioning some group of people who are known as "changing people" (with changing as an adjective)? If the latter, who are these "changing people?"

Also, why did he have to put "meaning me" at the end? I understand that he's got "municipal experience," that's not the confusing part! Did someone just forget to put a comma somewhere? Did the reporter understand the quote when it was said and it just translated badly to print? Or did the reporter never understand it in the first place, and if so why print it? Is there a typo? A misquote? Are people speaking in a dialect I don't understand? Am I just an idiot?

My head hurts.

If those were the only confusing things in the paper I'd be okay, but it gets worse.

I was hoping that with DeSalvatore out of the race I wouldn't have to write about him anymore. But he's still making a lot of noise, and he's saying things that confuse me even more than Donnelly did!

From the Sentinel's article entitled DeSalvatore: Loss came from 'character assassination':

DeSalvatore said "information terrorists" called his supporters and spread negative information about him.

"As long as that ultra-liberal sense continues we don't have a chance," he said. "Without a prevailing common sense, the city is done."

Huh?

At first I quoted the "information terrorists" part mostly because I think it's funny. I thought I understood it and it was just crazy talk, but on further reflection I understand it less and less.

Are phone banks terrorism now? If not, who are these scary terrorists with too much free time on their hands who go around cold-calling people just to badmouth Ted? Why didn't the people who got the calls just hang up? I'd hang up, and I'm no Ted fan! Is it still terrorism if the victim can end it just by hanging up?

But what really baffles me is the "ultra-liberal" thing. Where did that even come from? Is it just the catch-all term conservatives use for anyone or anything they don't like? Is "ultra-liberal sense" something that alerts you to danger, like "Spidey sense"? Except maybe it alerts you to ultra-liberal danger! And how is that in any way connected with the phone terrorists? Or is it just a requirement that whenever you make an attack on liberals you have to mention terrorism too?

And isn't "common sense" by definition "prevailing"? That's what makes it common sense!

Man I'm confused. Or if not me, someone else is.

He also said:

"For those that have been involved in city government: Shame on you for shenanigans and letting things go to hell."

But he's a city councilor! Doesn't that make him "involved in city government"? So he's shaming himself? What the hell is going on here?

I also read a bunch of stuff about Lisa Wong, but she didn't say anything that left me totally confused. I'm trying to be fair to all the candidates and ex-candidates here, so hopefully she'll get confusing really soon.

Dear Voters: Way to Go!

Okay, I'm late to the party reporting this (I was at a concert last night, which amazingly is more fun than writing about politics), but Lisa Wong continued her ass-kicking spree by running away with the mayoral primary yesterday.

Here's the breakdown:
Out of 5,472 votes (roughly a quarter of registered voters):

• Lisa Wong: 3,425 votes (63%)
• Tom Donnelly: 1,228 votes (22%)
• Ted DeSalvatore: 781 votes (14%)
• Ron Dionne: 36 votes (0.7%)

Yikes! Landslide!

This result was a surprise to many people, and I'll admit I was one of them. While I did expect Wong and Donnelly to both get through the primary, I thought they'd be much closer than they turned out. I even thought Donnelly would probably be the winner, though certainly not by a huge margin. Lisa's landslide indeed caught me by surprise.

Why? Because I totally underestimated the intelligence of the voters. Sorry about that, voters!

Also, I obviously underestimated Lisa Wong herself. Sorry about that, Lisa Wong!

So why did Wong win by such a huge margin? Well, in retrospect it's not that hard to see. She's run a very effective campaign that focused on the right things, timed things beautifully, and presented the best ideas and vision for the city. If I didn't underestimate the intelligence of the voters (sorry again!), that alone should have told me that she'd run away with it.

Another thing that can't be discounted and I've heard mentioned multiple times is Wong's intelligence, which sadly is a rare commodity in politics. For example, here's a quote from the Fitchburg Pride:

"I was thinking that over the years, most of our mayors have not been very bright and sort of incompetent," said Chuck Bagg this morning. "I voted for Lisa Wong because she seems so much brighter than anyone who has been around in a while."

Then there are the wider factors. Wong represents focused and intelligent change. Donnelly represents the status quo. DeSalvatore, of course, represented unfocused and unintelligent change. People want change, and they want change for the better.

That's really bad news for Donnelly, but he has a plan!

Donnelly said last night he heard the message for voters, and is ready to respond over the six weeks before the general election.

"I am for change. I know people want change," Donnelly said. "I look forward to the challenge we have in the next few weeks."

Yes, he'll switch his focus from "I've been here forever" to "I'm for change too!" I don't expect that to go very well, since he's been all about the status quo for so long. I'm sure this isn't a good time to be Tom Donnelly, but at least he understands why he lost didn't win.

Anyway, Wong's victory is a great sign for the future of Fitchburg. Congratulations to her, and way to go voters!

Campaign Financial Reports Oddly Telling

Hey, there's interesting news at the Fitchburg Pride!

Seems that campaign spending reports are in and there are a mess of numbers to look through! Sadly, I don't have access to the actual reports so we'll just have to take the Pride's word on stuff. [Update 12:15 pm: thanks to Jason of the FP for some additional data I'm working in now.]

How's it break down? Sort of like this:

• Tom Donnelly:
  • $17,980 raised, which includes $5,000 of his own money. So that's $12,980 from people who aren't Tom Donnelly.
  • $5,940 of that's from out-of-town donors.
  • Has $7,345 cash on hand.
  • "Donnelly is also carrying about $20,000 in liabilities in the form of loans. Included with the loan from this year are a number of loans dating back to 1999 from Donnelly to the campaign that have not been repaid."
  
  
• Lisa Wong:
  • $14,409 raised. $500 (the maximum personal contribution) of it her own, which puts her at $13,909 otherwise. That means she's the biggest money-raiser when we eliminate candidates' donations to themselves.
  • $7,074 of that is from out-of-town.
  • $3,091 cash on hand.
  • No report of any debts.
  
  
• Ted DeSalvatore:
  • "Just south of $11,000" raised, from "13 individual donors." I presume none of it is his money.
  • The Pride doesn't tell us how much of that is out-of-town, but I'm betting a bunch is. [Update: Jason from the pride indicates $1,800 from out-of-town donors.]
  • Zero cash on hand, because he has...
  • $6,077 in unpaid bills. Ouch!
  
  
• Ron Dionne:
  • No money raised.
  • No money spent.
  • Oh, he did get two in-kind donations of printer ink cartridges, for $120.68.

There's also mention of who gave money to Donnelly and Wong, both getting reasonable support from local bigshots who I don't care to go over here. Ted's report is rather more confusing, as:

DeSalvatore's report details only 13 individual donors. Law requires details accounting for only donors who give more than $200. The report lumps together fundraising from three events over the last year -- $1,575 from a "Thank You Party" held before DeSalvatore was officially a candidate, $1,429 from a "Heartbeat Dinner Dance," and $2,370 from a "Gold Rush BBQ."

Mind you, Donnelly and Wong both reported on lower-money donors. I guess Ted's treasurer isn't big on record keeping, or public disclosure of relevant information.

Additionally, even if we remove the three big events, Ted's left with about $5,500 in donations from just 13 donors (I think. This would be easier with the raw data and not just the incomplete Pride reporting.). [Update: Jason at FP thinks there was another "clump of unlisted, random donations" as well.] It would appear he has some interested parties throwing decent chunks of money at him. Pity for them that he can't seem to follow a damn budget and is six grand in the red. Did he learn nothing from his own bankruptcy filing earlier in life?

This is actually quite an interesting report, particularly when you consider the town's fiscal mismanagement in the past and the currently miserable state of its finances.

Wong is apparently the only candidate who's capable of working with money and not going into the red. Plus she's pretty good at raising it. Moneybags Donnelly has his own money to throw around, but he still has twenty grand in liabilities (though he does at least have cash on hand). DeSalvatore has six grand in liabilities, and no cash on hand. Perhaps he should stop it with the fucking signs already. Dionne has no real campaign and simply has a printer with expensive ink cartridges. I wonder which of these four candidates would be better at dealing with the town's budget?

It's no surprise that Donnelly raised a good chunk of change. The guy's been here forever and is very much the "establishment" candidate. Plus he has his own money to throw around. Why he still has twenty grand in liabilities and can't repay eight-year-old loans is beyond me, but certainly doesn't give me a good feeling about his ability to manage finances.

DeSalvatore's report is just weird. He doesn't report on the small contributions, has no cash on hand, and has six thousand dollars in unpaid bills. Incidentally, $5,000 of those are (indirectly) to his campaign manager, who I suspect probably won't send him to collections. Of course, I believe $5,000 is quite a bit higher than the maximum campaign contribution allowed, so surely he'll be collecting on that bill at some point. Right?

Either way, Ted spent more money than he had. A lot more money than he had. During the debate, he said his qualification for handling the city's $95 million budget was "common sense." While that's ridiculous in itself, this goes on to indicate that his "common sense" is incredibly bad. Basically, if he ran the city budget the way he runs his campaign budget, he'd spend $173 million and have a deficit of $78 million. Criminy!

Dionne has no campaign, obviously. But his report does raise the issue of how printer ink is ridiculously expensive, so I guess that's something. He's bringing light to important issues!

I think the pretty obvious choice here if you care about the city's finances is to vote for Wong. It looks more and more like the race is going to come down to her and Donnelly anyway, which would be a very nice thing as far as I'm concerned.

More Like May-snore-al Debate!

Proving that my friends are way cooler than anyone else's friends, I got together with some of them last night to watch the mayoral debate on FATV. Awesome!

Now, I'm actually not a big fan of debates. Truth doesn't much matter in a debate. You don't win by telling the truth (just ask Ron Paul), you win by having the most skill at debating. Debating is a very specialized skill, and has nothing to do with honesty. Personally, I'd rather see the candidates all submit specific multi-page position papers a couple of months before the election and be forced to defend them to a committee of fact-checkers and people who ask tough questions. But whatever.

On the other hand, the skills used in a political debate are some of the same skills that are valuable in a mayor. So it's not like it's totally pointless for deciding who'd be the best mayor. It's just totally pointless if you're trying to use it to examine the issues. It's about communication skills and creating the right perception, not good ideas. Communication skills and creating the right perception are important in a mayor though, so let's examine the boring debate!

Rather than pretend like the issues have relevance in this format, I'll just go through the candidates alphabetically by last name and give my perceptions from this debate:

Ronald Dionne:

Remember when James Stockdale was in the vice-presidential debates as Ross Perot's running mate? He seemed like a confused old man who was totally out of his element. That's who Ron Dionne brought to mind last night.

Don't get me wrong, Dionne seems like he's probably a pretty nice guy. He's been a truck driver in the past, and I bet he's fun to hang out with on a long trip.

But he didn't bring anything to the debate. He didn't really seem like he belonged there, or knew anything. And he kept getting confused about things. I expected him to bolt for the door at one point.

If there was an overall "loser" in the debate, it was probably Dionne.


Ted Desalvatore:

It's an old cultural bias that liars are "shifty-eyed". I don't know if that's true, but Ted may just be the most shifty-eyed person I've ever seen! Not only did he not look into the camera once during the entire debate, he actually went so far as to swivel back and forth in his chair!

Presumably he was talking to the tiny audience in the studio, but it came across really badly to anyone watching on tv.

I also think he believes that when you become mayor of Fitchburg you somehow become omnipotent and can do things like tell judges what to do. He did specify that he wouldn't be literally boxing with them (seriously!), but it's generally a bad idea to tell judges how to do their job. Anyway, my understanding is that they're not appointed by the mayor and I doubt they give two shits about what he has to say.

One fun thing he did say was pointed out over at Fitchburg Follies. It dealt specifically with a Prop 2 1/2 override for school budget stuff, and the quote is:

"I would be out there trying to sell the right decision, whatever the right decision would be."

Way to be informed!

He also thought that all it takes to manage a $95 million budget is "common sense." Oh my.

Of course, all that is getting dangerously close to an issue and as I said issues are meaningless in this format.

Anyway, DeSalvatore sucks on camera and came across really badly. Maybe a little bit better than Dionne, but he still ran third. Which I guess leaves two potential winners! Who will it be?

Tom Donnelly:

Nope, not the winner (I bet you can't guess who was!).

He never really seemed very comfortable on camera. All hunched-up and weird. Also, he attacked Lisa Wong out of the blue a few times, making himself the only candidate to really stoop to that.

A friend pointed out to me that Donnelly's the only one of the four candidates with the funds and likelihood to have done opinion polling. Does attacking Wong (and nobody else) mean that he fears her the most? Beats me, but it's possible! He certainly didn't seem too concerned about Ted.

He also spent a lot of time basically saying he'd have other people do his job, trying to put the blame for things the city council did on other people, and taking credit for things that Wong did. Weird.

He did at least look at the camera and basically act like somebody who might be a sort of bargain-basement mayor. Though it would require the town giving up a bit of dignity.

Overall, he just came across as sort of a dick though.

Lisa Wong:

Yeah, she won. Easily.

While Donnelly gave the impression that he might be mayor-ish, Wong gave the impression that she already has the mayor thing in the bag. She was good on camera, articulate, and actually made an attempt to present specific solutions to things.

Really, she was head and shoulders above the other three. Also, she's clearly much smarter and better-informed than the other three, which is pretty sad when you consider two of them are city councilors. She did manage not to come across as a snooty smart person though, which is probably good.

So yeah, Wong won.

And that's that for my mayoral debate wrap-up thing.

On a related matter, I notice there are two polls going on that ask who won the debate. One is over at Save Fitchburg, where the insane legions of Ted supporters have showed up to vote for him and pretend he didn't look like a cat watching a string during the whole thing. Still, he's just three votes ahead of Wong at this point (the others candidates are way down).

The other--much better--poll is at Hello Fitchburg. It's a better representation, I'd argue, since the DeSalvatore groupies don't generally try to stuff that one.

Why not go take both? Let your voice be heard!

[Update 9/18/07: Hey, there's even a third one at Fitchburg's Voice. It matches pretty well with the Hello Fitchburg one, and of course the Save Fitchburg one is still just gibberish that has DeSalvatore winning.]

Mayoral candidate websites are fun!

As a public service (and because I'm bored at work), I hereby bring you a critique of the websites of the mayoral candidates. This will be a short preview, because I couldn't find websites for three of the five announced candidates. If anybody knows where they are (if they even exist) please pass them along. In the meantime, enjoy!

• Mayor Dan Mylott - www.mylott.com:
  
  
  Well, it's almost a website. It has a picture of the mayor and a bunch of signs. It also has old news that he's running for mayor, and a slick babelfish translation button at the bottom so you can try to translate it from French to German (doesn't work), or read the page in what I assume would be badly mangled Japanese.
  
  Here's his catchy slogan to illustrate:
  
  Sweet...
  
  Oddly, that's it. There are no active links on the page at all. Nothing about issues. No list of qualifications. Nothing.
  
  Well, unless you dig into the actual html, where you can find the old links commented out. It appears this website is just recycled from the Mayor's 2001 campaign. As evidence, here's the image beneath Dan's picture on the front page:
  
  Compare to the image in the same spot on every other page:
  
  Now, there's nothing wrong with updating an old campaign website for your current campaign, but sheesh Dan, at least put something on the new site!
  
  For a trip down memory lane, here are the old pages no longer linked to:
  News & Events
  "Where Dan Stands"
  "Dan's Biography"
  More news, apparently
  Old gallery of funny pictures
  
  Now, I'm sure that Mayor Mylott could at least update his Biography. Plus I'm willing to bet he might still stand for something or other. Maybe all that information is out in the media, but it's beyond me why he's not making his own case. C'mon, Mr. Mayor, give us something new!


• Lisa Wong - www.votelisawong.com:
  
  
  
  Lisa Wong's website when it first came online was embarrassing. A single page of mostly white space with a weird-ass slogan and very little of anything else on it. Mylott's page above was superior in comparison, which is pretty sad.
  
  Happily, they've switched places. Where once Mylott had a real site that turned into one page, Wong's one page has turned into a real (four page!) website. The new site is in place now and it's much better. It still has its quirks (it would probably be good to rename the main page to something other than "Page 1" for instance), but it's at least got some substance to it now. For instance, there's this awesome picture of her and her brothers preparing for a formal-dress game of "Red Rover":
  
  
  
  Aside from the charming family photos, there's actually a pretty in-depth Issues page. I won't bother quoting it here, but overall it's a pretty decent list of what Wong hopes to do as mayor. As such, it may be more of a "plans" page than an "issues" page, but at least it's not an annoying "What Lisa Stands For" page.
  
  I'm also going to go out on a limb and bet that Lisa actually made this website herself. Why? Because the title of the "meet Lisa" page is actually "ABOUT ME". Aha!
  
  This isn't a bad thing, though. There are zero cases of "it's" being used when "its" should have been, nor are there problems with "insured" versus "ensured". This automatically makes Wong a better writer than 95% of the people on the internet. Which is obviously a qualification you want in a mayor.
  


• Ted DeSalvatore - not really...:
  
  
  I don't know if Ted DeSalvatore has a real website hidden away somewhere. After all he's a computer guy right? Or if my suspicions are correct and this is his LinkedIn profile, a "Computer Service & Support Training Specialist". Either way, a dude who should have a website.
  
  But no, once again I've linked to the hilariously incomplete Team to Elect DeSalvatore's contact form. Incidentally, if you're an obnoxious blogger who perpetually makes fun of Ted they probably won't want to hear from you, even if you try to be nice.
  
  Regardless, it's not really Ted's site so it doesn't count in the grand total.
  
  UPDATE 7/18/07: He's got one now! Review is here
  


• Ronald Dionne - ?:
  No website I could find, but I don't think anyone gives him much chance anyway. He could better his chances with a bit of self promotion on the web, perhaps. But then people might have to give him more of a chance.


• Tom Donnelly - ?:
  I couldn't find a website for him either. Probably he's just too big a pussy to make one.
  
  UPDATE 8/3/07: Not so! Review is here

There you have it, your handy "Progressive Fitchburg Guide to Mayoral Campaign Websites, Featuring the Unicow". Now back to work.

Everybody Running for Everything

Oh boy, there are candidates aplenty these days.

First, the local crazy people are aflutter over Ted DeSalvatore's official announcement that he's running for mayor. (even though we've known he'll be doing this for months).

Here's one of those crazy people now:

Patty E. Martin, who owns The Hair Cottage and is a lifelong resident, said to see the decline in the city “and not have anybody recognize it until certain people have stepped forward is very enlightening.”

“He’s a man of the people,” she said, “and for some reason you were led to this city, and you’re going to lead the city to a brighter future.”

Mr. DeSalvatore has found himself at odds with some of his colleagues on the council.

Mrs. Martin said she is proud of how he handles himself at meetings when “negativity” comes up. This is an effort to distract him from the issues, she said.

Of course, this focus on "negativity" is bound to be a recurring theme in Ted's campaign, with Ted presented as the "positive" candidate and everyone who disagrees with him portrayed as negative. Never mind that the only negativity we've really seen is other city councilors saying Ted's ideas suck. And that's only because they do.

Second, (but the first to announce, sorry Ted) is mayoral candidate Ronald Dionne, who pulled papers on Tuesday. The Sentinel didn't bother to report on it until Thursday though, because he's not Ted.

I don't know a whole lot about Dionne. He's a Democrat, he's been manager of the old Child World toy store, managed a liquor store, and was a truck driver. (Incidentally Ted is an independent, presumably because it suits his self-styled rebel image. Or because no party would have him.)

Right now those (fairly paltry) qualifications put Dionne well ahead of dangerous Ted DeSalvatore and incompetent Dan Mylott in my book, which is pretty sad.

Finally, Peter Allaire is a 58-year old former firefighter and is running for the Ward 5 city council position. He did say this, which I agree with:

"I'd like to see things in downtown that could draw college kids to Main Street."

However:

Allaire's brother used to be married to Cynthia Allaire, manager of the now-defunct Club Karma and the new Bourbon Street Food and Spirits.

Why is that a "however"? Well, DeSalvatore has some ties with Club Karma. Some potentially unethical ties.

That may or may not reflect badly on Allaire. But if he's a DeSalvatore groupie then he could very well be a dick. Time will tell.

On a side note about Club Karma, a friend of mine used to work part-time there and told me they had "bikini bull riding" on Thursday nights, which sounds awesome. She also told me the boss was a total raving jackass, which isn't so awesome.

So there you have it, three candidates I can't get the slightest bit excited about. One of whom worries me deeply (guess which!).

Which brings me to the next point; are you curious about which of the local papers has the biggest hard-on for DeSalvatore? Wonder no more, it's easy to measure!

• The Worcester Telegram isn't too excited:

  A string of supporters stood up last night to talk about the candidate they were backing, while an audience of about 50 people looked on in the Stonehaven Restaurant.

• The Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise is getting a little excited:

  "It is my hope that in '08, we can bar the egos and the shenanigans from City Hall," DeSalvatore told about 60 people who attended a kick-off dinner Thursday at Stonehaven Food & Spirits.

• Fitchburg Pride is raring to go:

  "I guess I'm in this for the long haul," DeSalvatore told a crowd of about 70 people at the Stonehaven Restaurant. "I am your candidate for change."

Congratulations, Fitchburg Pride! You win!



[Addendum] Wait a second! "[B]ar the egos and the shenanigans from City Hall"? Did Ted just disqualify himself at his own kick-off dinner?